[SpamCop-List] Re: Bringing bullet proof hosts down
completelyfalse at harrykiri.com
Sun Oct 10 12:46:39 EDT 2004
"WindsorFox[SS]" <windsorfoxNOSPAM at cox.net> wrote in message
news:ck9m14$7vt$1 at news.spamcop.net...
> Merlyn wrote:
> > It is still a form of "Denial of Service" which is most likely
> > providers TOS.
Yes, it may well be contrary to an ISP's wishes, it might also be
contrary to the providers TOS. But "Denial of Service"? Not true at
> > Fighting abuse with abuse is not the way.
> Then what is? What we are doing now is obviously not working.
> Either something is going to have to get extremely nasty soon, or the
> Internet will have to abandon the use of email.
You are correct, in the US and most other countries, what "conventional"
spamfighters are doing isn't reducing spam. It grows every day. It
recently forced me to give up my email address of seven years standing,
when my incoming spam exceeded 250 per day, outnumbering my wanted
emails by around 50:1.
The only country making progress seems to be Australia, who now have
draconian spam laws and massive penalties (AUS $1 million fines for
spams with an Australian connection). I haven't seen any Oz originated
spams since April, although I don't read incoming spams and I might
easily have missed some. Australians don't take kindly to spam,
although incredibly, the Oz politicians have exempted themselves from
the spam laws!
With regards to fighting abuse with abuse, some pretty simple principles
apply. The schoolyard bully only stops when they get back what they
dish out. That is human nature and no amount of turning the other cheek
is going to stop that.
If you are under continuous personal attack, you must do whatever you
can, (within the law), to stop the attacker. If spamfighters choose to
fight back with one arm tied behind their back, then so be it, that is
their right. But for years now, the one armed fighter has failed to
stop spam, in fact there's barely a dent in the traffic. Given this
failure to stop it, it's absurd for one armed fighters to criticise two
I have reported many tens of thousands of spams over the last four years
and I will continue to do so for spam received on my "throwaway"
addresses, even though I know it's like urinating into the wind.
Notwithstanding that, I congratulate and encourage those with bandwidth
to spare who can hit the spammers in the pocket - where it will have
*much* more effect than conventional reporting.
The "denial of service" argument is completely invalid - anyone who
wishes to, can still access spamvertised sites, whether or not
"spamvampires" are active.
Again, my heartfelt "thanks" to fellow spamfighters using *any* lawful
methods to fight spam. Pay no attention to those who twist the natural
meaning of "denial of service". Saying that spamvampires (or similar
techniques) are "a form of denial of service" is like saying "Taxation
is a form of stealing". It simply isn't so, but this erroneous argument
gets trotted out time and again - no one ever claims they can't access a
website because a spamvampire was active!
Does anyone claim this? Then please post the link to the spamvampired
website to we can all test to see if it is a DOS ...
We are all fighting for a spam free Internet. Attacking each others
(legal) methods will make the spammers happy, fragment us and in the end
help fill the pockets of the Richters of this world.
More information about the SpamCop-List